All submissions undergo editorial review and double blind peer reviews. The editorial team maintains strict confidentiality regarding reviewer identities from authors and vice versa, ensuring both parties remain anonymous to each other. All identifying information such as names, institutional affiliations, and other identifiers are removed from manuscripts during review.

Typically, each manuscript is evaluated by two to three subject matter experts who assess scientific validity and coherence, originality of contribution, and clarity of presentation. Reviewers also provide feedback on the research's significance and interest value. Editorial decisions are based on these evaluations, with consultation from Editorial Board members when necessary.

Based on the reviewers comments, the editors will then accept or reject the papers with the following conditions: 
(1) Publication approval with or without editorial modifications
(2) Request for manuscript revision addressing specific reviewer concerns
(3) Rejection due to insufficient originality, conceptual advancement, or significant methodological/interpretational issues
(4) Clear documentation of all modifications made to original submissions for author verification

Authors should thoroughly examine their revised manuscripts for structural integrity, textual completeness, reference accuracy, and quality of tables and figures. Final publication decisions rest with the Editor-in-Chief. The Editorial Board maintains authority to refine articles for style, format, and clarity. Manuscripts containing excessive errors in elements such as spelling or punctuation may be returned for revision or declined outright.